Revision of an issue outside the scope of reassessment is time-barred where the limitation period for revision runs from the original assessment order. Reassessment initiated for specified financial transactions did not encompass the debenture redemption reserve, which had already been addressed in the original assessment. Section 147, including Explanation 3, permits assessment of another escaped-income issue that comes to notice during reassessment, but no material established that the reserve issue arose in those proceedings. The original assessment therefore remained operative for that issue, and revision concerning the reserve was barred by limitation.

CBDT instructions on stay and recovery of disputed demands before the first appellate authority ordinarily limit recovery to 20% of the demand, with the balance stayed pending appeal. This limitation applies equally to penalty demands and assessment demands because the instructions draw no distinction between them. Refunds relating to other assessment years cannot be adjusted in full against a disputed penalty demand while first appeals and stay applications remain pending. Any adjustment exceeding the prescribed recovery extent must be reversed and refunded with applicable interest, while the balance demand remains stayed until disposal of the appeal.

Section 260A permits an appeal only on substantial questions arising from the ITAT order under challenge. Questions concerning deduction for product development expenditure related to a separate assessee appeal, for which the Revenue had filed an independent appeal, rather than the challenged Revenue appeal. They therefore could not be advanced as substantial questions in the present appeal.

Faceless best-judgment assessments under the Income-tax Act must comply with natural justice by objectively considering material available before completion and affording a reasonable hearing. Expiry of a stipulated response period, without a timely adjournment request, does not itself prevent the Assessing Officer from proceeding; however, the right to reply remains material unless formally closed. Where a response to an extensive questionnaire was filed late but viewed before assessment, it must be considered. A video-conference hearing must be provided before the assessment is redetermined, without addressing the merits of the taxpayer's claims.

Customised road-restoration services supplied by a government authority to enable a business pipeline project are treated as taxable supplies where charges are paid for specific restoration work. The reciprocal, request-driven arrangement distinguishes the charges from compensatory damages and sovereign public-welfare functions, preventing non-supply treatment or exemption; GST falls on the business recipient under reverse charge. Electronic GST portal records can establish the authenticity and integrity of refund proceedings. A notice identifying the factual and legal basis for refund rejection is not invalid merely because no physical Document Identification Number appears, where the recipient responds fully and suffers no prejudice.

Section 129(1)(a) permits detention and penalty where goods are transported in contravention of GST requirements, without requiring proof of intent to evade tax. The obligation is civil and statutory. Rule 138(10) allows an e-way bill's validity to be extended within the prescribed period; failure to obtain an extension leaves transport after expiry non-compliant. Where the vehicle remained in transit nearly three days after expiry, unsupported GPS material and unreliable repair records did not establish a credible breakdown. Circular No. 64 did not exempt transport under an expired e-way bill from Section 129 proceedings.

Refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit requires independent satisfaction of the statutory refund conditions. Credit accumulated from Compensation Cess paid on coal used in manufacturing leather products for domestic supply does not qualify merely because no Compensation Cess applies to the outward supply; the inverted tax structure category requires accumulation because input tax rates exceed output tax rates. Entitlement to avail credit and restricted utilisation solely for Compensation Cess payments do not create a cash-refund right. The refund formula applies only after substantive eligibility is established. Circular guidance on cess credit for zero-rated supplies under bond or LUT does not extend an unconditional refund entitlement to domestic outward supplies.

Refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit under the inverted tax structure requires independent satisfaction of the statutory conditions in Section 54(3). Credit eligibility and an inability to use Compensation Cess credit against other tax liabilities do not, by themselves, create a cash-refund entitlement. The restriction limiting use of such credit to payment of Compensation Cess does not remove the need to establish a qualifying refund category. Rule 89(5) provides a computation mechanism only after substantive eligibility is established. Circulars concerning Compensation Cess refunds for zero-rated supplies, including supplies under bond or letter of undertaking, do not extend an unconditional refund right to domestic supplies not subject to Compensation Cess.

Reliable contemporaneous documentation and verifiable transaction parties are required to establish that goods in transit form part of a genuine out-of-State consignment. Delayed invoices and bilties not produced at interception, not reliably linked to undeclared goods, or unexplained by corroborative material do not substantiate lawful documentation. Claimed interstate movement also fails where alleged buyers and sellers do not acknowledge the transaction or establish their identity, business credentials, addresses, ownership, or connection with the consignment. A transit-state principle applicable to documented consignments involving identifiable genuine parties does not extend to unsupported destination claims, supporting penalty action for undeclared goods.

Refund of unutilised Compensation Cess input tax credit requires independent satisfaction of statutory refund categories, including the inverted tax structure. Entitlement to take input tax credit and the restriction that Compensation Cess credit may be used only to pay Compensation Cess do not themselves create a cash-refund right. Non-levy of Compensation Cess on domestic outward supplies or inability to set off the credit against other GST liabilities is insufficient. The cited circulars cover Compensation Cess credit attributable to qualifying zero-rated supplies and do not extend an unconditional refund facility to domestic supplies. Rule 89(5) applies only after substantive refund eligibility is established.

Early hearing of an appeal seeking revocation of GST registration cancellation was granted because the application met Rule 29 requirements and established that cancellation prevented continuation of business. The absence of any objection from the respondent supported priority listing. The appeal was therefore listed for priority hearing, enabling expedited consideration of registration revocation.

Rules 10, 12, 13 and 29 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025 preserve inherent procedural powers, allow urgent listing, permit exemption from procedural requirements on sufficient cause, and recognise early-hearing applications. Continued inability to conduct business following cancellation of registration may constitute sufficient cause for urgent consideration. Procedural requirements should facilitate substantial justice rather than prevent timely appellate consideration. Any exemption from ordinary Registry scrutiny is limited to urgent listing and does not waive statutory conditions or determine the appeal's maintainability or merits.

Monetary-limit instructions under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act regulate departmental GST appeals, including appeals before GSTAT. Where only penalty is disputed, the disputed penalty determines whether the appeal meets the applicable threshold. Commissioner authorisation for an appeal does not independently exempt the Revenue from the litigation policy. A below-threshold appeal requires the Revenue to specifically plead and establish a recognised exception, including a reasoned, case-specific exercise of any residual power by the Commissioner. Without such an exception or recorded opinion, the departmental appeal is not maintainable.

Penalty for alleged diversion of goods under Section 129(3) requires an established contravention in the actual movement of goods. The department must displace the tax invoice and e-way bill with reliable evidence of diversion, unloading, or receipt by an undeclared recipient. Route deviation, a vehicle's presence near another factory, and an uncorroborated driver statement do not by themselves prove deliberate contravention. Reliance on undisclosed GPS-camera material also denies an effective opportunity to contest adverse evidence and breaches principles of natural justice. Without reliable proof, the factual basis for detention and penalty fails, making the penalty unsustainable.

Pre-show-cause audit closure under the CGST Act is an administrative step under the audit power and does not constitute quasi-judicial adjudication or prevent a proper officer from issuing notice for unpaid or short-paid tax. Ghamellas/Tasla, expressly named under Tariff Item 73239410, are classified there rather than as exempt agricultural hand tools: the specific description prevails under Rule 3(a), and legacy excise treatment does not govern GST classification. The January 2018 amendments are clarificatory rather than creating a new tax liability. Deliberately changing invoice descriptions for goods with unchanged characteristics constitutes misstatement and suppression, supporting an equivalent penalty; tax, interest and penalty remain enforceable.

Rule 138 requires an e-way bill for movement of goods above the prescribed consignment value, including internal stock transfers undertaken otherwise than by way of supply. A delivery challan under Rule 55 does not replace that requirement, and distance-based relaxations do not generally exempt e-way bill generation. However, transfer of tax-paid goods between a taxpayer's own godown and showroom, without consideration or another person, is not a taxable supply and creates no tax liability. A procedural e-way bill lapse cannot sustain a Section 129 penalty where no tax is payable and the facts do not establish deliberate tax evasion or clandestine removal.

Section 109(5) of the CGST Act permits specified classes of cases to be assigned exclusively to the Principal Bench. Appeals pending before two or more State Benches that raise an identical question of law, and for which the President has recorded satisfaction, must be heard by the Principal Bench under the notified class. Those appeals are outside State Bench jurisdiction. The identified common issue concerns eligibility for input tax credit in relation to telecom towers.

Input tax credit requires a valid invoice and proof of actual receipt of goods. Tax invoices, e-way bills, consignment notes, verifiable banking payments and undisputed consumption of inputs in manufacturing substantiate a purchaser's bona fides. A supplier's subsequent non-existence or retrospective registration cancellation does not, by itself, negate such evidence or justify credit reversal. Fraud-based penalty requires proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression or collusion by the purchaser. Where reliable contemporaneous records establish purchase, transport, payment and consumption, and no material proves the purchaser's knowledge of or participation in supplier fraud, penalty and consequential tax and interest demands are unsustainable.

A prima facie bona fide explanation for delay supported admission of the GST appeal for regular hearing. Payment of 20% of the stipulated pre-deposit triggered the statutory deemed stay of recovery proceedings for the unpaid balance while the appeal remains pending and has not been dismissed. The respondents were required to comply with the recovery stay, while the merits of the underlying demand remain undecided.

Writ jurisdiction over pending inspection and search proceedings was not exercised before issuance of a show-cause notice or final liability determination. Disputes over independent witnesses, the panchnama, and the voluntariness of tax payment required assessment of contemporaneous material by the competent authority. The writ petition was dismissed at that preliminary stage without deciding the merits, and all contentions remained open in statutory adjudication.